New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[racerx]

 

 

 

How would you respond if a company took your IP, lied about having the rights to it in order to raise money?

 

And yeah, I realize he doesn't own the IP, but that's a perfectly valid remark.

 

No, I've seen his posts before. Definitely a dick.

[TheVgaTv]

What's really going to be awesome is when they go bankrupt and someone buys the molds for the boxes and slaps a RetroPi in there and sells them for half of what Atari currently wants.

[MotoRacer]

I call the molds for that "Xbox" controller. Take everything else, I don't care. That's the only thing they've made that's even remotely "cool" to me.

[CommanderGrimm]

What's really going to be awesome is when they go bankrupt and someone buys the molds for the boxes and slaps a RetroPi in there and sells them for half of what Atari currently wants.

 

Speaking of which, after the release of the console dimensions I've been working on a new design, based entirely off of the actual console dimensions.

 

 

It's taking longer than I thought due to my summer class schedule, but I'm almost finished. Going to be doing a test print soon. Just like the "real" VCS, it is assembled out of the ribs connected to one another, connected with two rods going though either side of the console. I'm considering ways to more firmly hold it together, but for now it is still being worked on.

 

[toiletunes]

Nice! If you took out 2/3 ribs, you'd have a nice Taco tray

[Flojomojo]

Another tuber speaks out. I like this better than the Rerez hot take, because he doesn't spend too much time on the emulation red herring (there's zero evidence this is using WINE on Linux), but instead focuses on how our AtariBox pals have been misleading in a Chameleonesque way.

 

[BiffsGamingVideos]

So after re-reading my previous post about the FTC rules, I do not think that this disclaimer is good enough. The video says it is a test of the VCS. The screen shows Tempest 4000 with a VCS on the table and a guy with a VCS joystick. I'm not a lawyer buy I think something like "Windows Version" would qualify. Saying it it "illustrative" (so I can't spell) isn't enough. To me that illustrates a game that is on the system and how the system works. It is being very deceptive.

 

This is the full disclosure rule from the FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2014/09/full-disclosure

====================

 

If the disclosure of information is necessary to prevent an ad from being deceptive, the disclosure has to be clear and conspicuous. That shouldn’t be news to any advertiser and certainly not to the 60+ companies – including 20 of the 100 biggest advertisers in the U.S. – that received warning letters as a part of the FTC’s Operation Full Disclosure. But whether your company heard from us or not, there are lessons to learn from our latest effort to ensure advertisers abide by time-honored legal principles.

Operation Full Disclosure included TV ads, print ads, ads in Spanish, and ads for a wide range of products and services – food, drugs, household items, consumer electronics, personal care products, weight loss products. It ran the gamut. And here’s what we found: A lot of ads included potentially misleading statements that advertisers tried to “fix” with problematic fine print.

Some ads quoted prices, but didn’t adequately disclose the strings that were attached. Others showed optional accessories, but didn’t adequately disclose that people had to buy extras to get the advertised benefit. Still others featured best-case-scenario consumer testimonials, but didn’t adequately disclose the results people could generally expect to achieve. We also spotted ads that included on-camera demonstrations without adequately disclosing material alterations. And that’s just for starters.

Of course, just because your company didn’t get a warning letter doesn’t mean everything is necessarily ship-shape. Savvy marketers will take Operation Full Disclosure as an opportunity for a refresher on the “clear and conspicuous” standard. There are lots of places to look for more guidance: the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, any of the dozens of cases where the FTC has challenged disclosures as ineffective, the 2001 FTC-NAD national workshop Disclosure Exposure, and recently revised guidance about digital disclosures, to name just a few.

Here’s a practical way to think of it. If a disclosure is truly clear and conspicuous, consumers don’t have to hunt for it. It reaches out and grabs their attention. One mnemonic we use – The 4Ps – can help sharpen advertisers’ focus on four key considerations:

• Prominence. Is the disclosure big enough for consumers to read easily? The fine-print “disclosure” and its TV cousin, the fleeting super, have long been the subjects of FTC law enforcement. Consumers shouldn’t have to scan an ad with a magnifying glass to pick up on material details of the deal. TV advertisers face the additional wild card of varying screen sizes. Regardless of whether a person is looking at the ad on a home theater system or a handheld device, small type can be easy to overlook. Furthermore, consumers shouldn’t have to be speed readers to grasp the message. FTC cases have challenged supers that flashed for just a brief period, lines of fine print on a single screen, and hard-to-read sentences over multiple screens. Consider contrast, too. White text on a light or variegated background isn’t likely to be noticed. Nor will a fine-print statement that has to compete with a dynamic and distracting image.
• Presentation. Is the disclosure worded in a way that consumers can easily understand? Using legalese or technical terminology reduces the likelihood that consumers will get the message. Burying important information in a dense block of text is another common tactic that signals “don’t read me.” In one FTC settlement, for example, material information about the terms of the transaction appeared after an advertiser’s long litany of trademark information. In another case, a company used an intricately embellished all-caps font. That may be fine for the logo of a heavy metal band, but it’s not a presentation designed to convey critical information to consumers.
• Placement. Geography matters. Is the disclosure where consumers are likely to look? An FTC settlement challenged as ineffective a key disclosure that ran down the side of a print ad perpendicular to the main text. Another case dealt with information conveyed in small type in the upper left corner of a full-page newspaper ad. And given all the talk about footnotes, the bottom of the page or screen isn’t a place most consumers will look.
• Proximity. Is the disclosure close to the claim it modifies? Tiny type aside, another problem with footnotes is their distance from the prominent headline or splashy text designed to draw the consumer in. If you need to include key qualifications or conditions, remember this maxim: What the headline giveth, the footnote cannot taketh away. And don’t think an asterisk will always solve the problem. There’s a reason it’s called an aste-risk.

Now for the nitty-gritty. So just how big does a disclosure have to be? 4 point, 8 point, 12 point? What’s better: Times New Roman? Helvetica? How many seconds does it have to be on the screen? We get those questions all the time. But there are three reasons why advertisers who focus on the details may be missing the big picture.

“Clear and conspicuous” is a performance standard, not a font size. A disclosure is clear and conspicuous if consumers notice it, read it, and understand it. Do you really want the FTC staff dictating the specifics of your ad campaign? We didn’t think so. Aside from a few rules that mandate detailed disclosure standards, the “clear and conspicuous” ball is in the advertiser’s court. As long as consumers looking at the ad come away with an accurate understanding, companies have substantial leeway in how they communicate their marketing message. That’s why we think it would be a mistake to impose a one-size-fits-all approach.

Who knows better than advertisers how to convey information clearly and conspicuously? The “clear and conspicuous” standard allows advertisers to use their limitless creativity to integrate important information into the overall campaign. Even so, we often hear them say “But we don’t know how to make a disclosure clear and conspicuous.” Our response: Really? Really? Advertisers’ stock in trade is the ability to use the tools at their fingertips – text, sound, visuals, contrast, or color, to name just a few – to convey information effectively. One practical observation: Consider looking at it from another perspective. How would you send the message if you really wanted to, rather than because you think you have to? Approaching the disclosure as a key piece of information you want to convey may make it easier to ensure it’s clear and conspicuous.

When in doubt, rethink your ad claim. If you find yourself struggling with how to craft an effective disclosure, why not take a step back and consider what the need for a disclosure may be telling you. Perhaps it’s pointing to a potential for underlying deception in your ad claim. Sometimes all it takes is a slight wording change to make a disclosure unnecessary in the first place. And just think how refreshing consumers would find an ad free of fine print.

 

 

[Flojomojo]

It's not gonna enforce itself. Will you file a complaint?

[youxia]

Atari said in the comments section:

"This is just the beginning"

 

and

"With the VCS solid and ready to go for launch, there will be countless places to go after that."

"this platform is intended to offer a lot of opportunity to expand in many ways."

 

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Here are some other quotes:

 

Smarty Ring

"Be part of the tech revolution."

"This product is not only the first of its kind, but is truly the perfect fit for the tech savvy"

"high quality piece of tech-jewelry made from allergy free, surgical quality stainless steel. The simple elegance of this piece makes it suited for both men and women"

 

Kreyos Meteor

"Mobilize Your Life"

"We can ease your tech aches and pains"

"the other “smartwatches” on the market won’t have full gesture and voice control capabilities for a long time --- if ever."

 

Elroy Earbuds

"add new functionality to your digital lifestyle"

"transforming it into something that becomes a piece of electronic jewelry"

" I understand manufacturing on a visceral level"

 

GameStick

"There are over 1,416,338,245 TVs in the world but less than 1% of them are used to play games! Crazy.

We think that's because traditional games consoles and content are too expensive. So 12 months ago, we set out to challenge that by making the most affordable, open and portable TV games console ever created. At $79 GameStick offers the most affordable route to playing games on your TV."

 

 

Source: 7 Spectacular Crowdfunding Fails

[Osgeld]

[Pink]

 

Probably going to get Tempest 4000 on the Xbox One X. Really looking forward to it. Unfortunately I'm away from my home in Los Angeles, stuck in Upstate NY, and my only taco options are Taco Bell.

If your ever in the midwest check out Taco Johns. One of my favorite and most visited fast food establishments!

[AtariNerd]

 

Can anyone confirm the claim/speculation made in the last paragraph? (From the comments of the RGT "Scam" video, linked above.)

Edited June 8, 2018 by Standard User

[PlaysWithWolves]

 

Can anyone confirm the claim/speculation made in the last paragraph? (From the comments of the RGT "Scam" video, linked above.)

 

TheHistorian probably could, but will he?

That is, assuming the Ataribox team--led by Feargal mac Conuladh--designed the NuTari's shape and joystick controller.

[JBerel]

 

Can anyone confirm the claim/speculation made in the last paragraph? (From the comments of the RGT "Scam" video, linked above.)

Unless someone was privy to contract, probably not. But it certainly sounds more plausible than anything Atari has been claiming or making excuses for so far.

 

On their questionable representations of gameplay videos and such, I'm pretty certain none of it qualifies as advertising under FTC rules. They can't advertise what doesn't exist, and they have not established any implied contract with a consumer. There is no consumer for a crowd funding money grab. The cow eyed optimists can believe crowd funding is about making a community and seeking input, but those who are not easy marks know it is simply a legal route to avoid accountability while using other people's money.

[AtariNerd]

The source of that information might have been Curt Vendal (most probable), though it's possible he might have gotten it from the same source as the commenter, (I take no responsibility - I hedged above *points*)

 

/excerpt :

 

"I already know the inside scoop on whats going on and its borderline criminal whats taken place over the last 6+ months alone... I can say this much publicly - there is NOTHING in those cases, its glued on ports and some LED's inside, that's it. The only HW they have are a couple of unaltered AMD dev boards. They have nothing custom, heck they havent even tried to do a PC board layout yet. Biggest thing was how they tried to get a controller maker to agree to a contract that would've said they didnt get any kind of exclusive manufacturing of the controller for Atari so they could make some $ off of allowing Atari to use their design, basically the way the contract was worded: Atari takes your hardware for no payment, takes your hardware - goes to cheapest maker, runs off crappy low quality knock-offs..."/

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/105586892805903/permalink/1890527657645142/

Edited June 8, 2018 by Standard User

[AtariLeaf]

The one common thread among these so-called consoles and their "creators" like the Chameleon, the VCS, is their underestimation of the ability of the community they claim to cater to, to expertly expose any kind of sleight of hand, fakery, deception or down right lies they try to perpetrate.

[Pink]

They can't advertise what doesn't exist, and they have not established any implied contract with a consumer.

Except they have explicitly called their crowdfunding campaign a preorder, and refer to the wood grain edition as an Indiegogo exclusive.

 

And anyone can most certainly advertise something that doesn't exist.

[PlaysWithWolves]

Backerkit shows a 200-backer drop from the previous day, making it the lowest number yet (+113). Secret Perk is still active, but actually saw a small drop from 1451 to 1439.

That the SP link is still alive and that they switched Early Birds to limited quantities suggests to me that the AVCS isn't doing as well as Atari hoped. Backers can call it a smashing success all day long, but it could still be a failure in Atari's eyes if their internal goals aren't met.

 

 

... the emulation red herring (there's zero evidence this is using WINE on Linux)

 

Agreed. I think that assuming they were using Linux + WINE is giving Nutari too much credit. Perhaps it's a $360 Windows laptop?

 

I don't know if the Atari VCS Tempest 4000 video is or isn't FTC-compliant. I do know it's extremely misleading and literally says "Atari VCS Modern Game Test" and scummy enough I'd hope it would at least test even the most supportive donor's resolve.

[JBerel]

I think any legal authority would look at anything associated with Indiegogo or similar and say "caveat emptor." That's really the only reason Atari and Feargal types use it. If they were genuinely interested in bringing a successful product to market, they'd raise capital and just do it. Anyone who is not a complete startup with small scale intentions using Indiegogo while proclaiming they are a major player is, by definition, scamming backers. They can't have it both ways, and backers have been warned more than enough. They will get no sympathy from anyone if and when this goes south. All the B.S. marketing hype and "pre-order" talk doesn't excuse their complete lack of critical thinking.

Edited June 8, 2018 by JBerel

[PlaysWithWolves]

Well, if/when it fails they'll certainly be the ones paying the price.

 

I figure most of the responses to any criticism will be of the "They'll fix it in post" sort; they'll get it all worked out before the shipping date. Same arguments as the RVGS; same as Chameleon; same as many others. Case in point: the "Who Cares?" thread over at Reddit. I'm not quoting or putting his username here because he may not be in this thread anymore (and I don't wish to summon him). I do think it illustrates what to expect.

[JBerel]

The 2 most amusing things so far today:

 

1. Watching RGT85's video highlighting Atari's fraudulent practices while the ad for the AtariVCS keeps popping up over it. LOL

 

2. "We love hearing feedback from our fans! We have passed these ideas along to our developers and engineers!" Now that sounds super awesome. Can't wait to play.

[godslabrat]

 

Atari has NOT been faring well on social media. They're aggressively deleting posts like most scammers do.

[digdugnate]

here's the reply:

 

Atari VCS says: "These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along"

Edited June 8, 2018 by digdugnate

[Flojomojo]

Oh boy. I don't think going on the offensive is going to work out well for them. There are a lot more people paying attention to Tubers than are paying money to AtariBox, and bad news travels fastest.

[NoLand]

 

So who's idea was it to superimpose the "Video Computer System" on the Windows gameplay footage from the betamax recorder while the guy fidgets the sticks randomly with no connection to the movement on the screen?

 

This might be a tricky one: When the game is running in the first level, it reads"Computer Space" at the lower left corner. I don't know anything about Tempest 4000, but could it be that names of popular retro systems and arcade games are used as level designators?

 

(Full disclosure: I'm very sceptic about this whole project.)